WesleyanTheology.com
  • Home
  • Theological Papers
    • The Trinity
    • Did Jesus Operate as God?
    • Only Begottenness and Submission
    • Should We Pray to Jesus?
    • The Minimum One Must Believe to Be Saved
    • Structure in the Trinity
    • Inerrancy and the Test of Truth
    • Inerrancy and WTS
  • Catechism
    • Prolegomena
    • Revelation
    • God
    • Man/Sin
    • Christ
    • Salvation
  • Apologetics
    • Engaging Unbelievers Philosophically
    • Apologetics links
  • Blog
  • Recommended Sites

The Cosmological Argument

2/5/2020

11 Comments

 
The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God begins with the idea that everything must have an adequate explanation. For example, let’s say that you went to school one day and in one of your classrooms you saw a big gorilla sitting on the front row, eating a bowl of corn flakes. You would not just think that it popped out of nothing. You would wonder where it came from and how it got there. You would begin to ask questions because you know it must have come from somewhere. 

Everything must have an adequate explanation, including the universe as a whole. You may not know why it’s here, but you know there’s a reason it is here. It didn’t just pop out of nothing, and whatever produced it had to have incredible properties. An effect cannot be greater than its cause. That’s a basic law of the universe. 

The word cosmological comes from cosmos, which means “world.” The cosmological argument demands an adequate explanation for the existence of the world, or universe. One version of the argument says:

>Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
>Premise Two: The universe began to exist.
 >Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Support for Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Our common experience shows us that this is true. If something could come from nothing, why wouldn’t things just pop in and out of existence all the time? That just doesn’t happen.
​                     

How could nothing produce something? Nothing would have to be something already in order to produce something else. So then nothing would not really be nothing, but something, if it were going to create something else. If we say that the universe created itself, we would have to say that it existed before it existed in order to create its own existence. Something would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. This is self-contradictory, and absurd.

Support for Premise Two: The universe began to exist.

One reason most scientists believe that the universe had a beginning is because of the apparent expansion of the universe.[1] Another reason to reject the idea of an eternal universe is the existence of the laws of thermodynamics. The first law states that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The second law states that the usable energy in the universe is being converted slowly into unusable energy. When you put the two laws together, you have a fixed amount of energy in the universe, but this energy is depleting (in terms of usability). What is the significance of this? The universe is slowly dying. If it has always existed as it does now (including the natural laws of the universe), the energy in the universe would already be spread out evenly. We would already be in a state of equilibrium, meaning everything would be the same temperature, and no life could exist.

So back to the syllogism itself:

Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise Two: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
 
What Kind of Cause?

So we know that the universe has a cause, but could it have been an impersonal cause? A force without a mind? Let’s suppose that there was an impersonal force in the beginning and everything else arose from that. If that were the case, there would only be three factors to explain all the complexities of the universe. Francis Schaeffer identifies these factors: 

“Beginning with the impersonal, everything, including man, must be          explained in terms of the impersonal plus time plus chance. Do not let anyone divert your mind at this point. There are no other factors in the formula, because there are no other factors that exist... . No one has ever demonstrated how time plus chance, beginning with an impersonal force, can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the [personality] of man.”[2]

The universe could not have come from an impersonal force, whether it be matter, energy or some other impersonal force.  This Cause had to have a mind to will the universe into existence since it had a beginning. And it had to have enough power and intelligence to produce the specified complexity of the universe. A personal, powerful, intelligent, eternal Cause provides an adequate explanation (an accounting) for the existence of the universe. 

Who Caused God?

Sometimes professing atheists raise the question: “If everything needs a cause, then who caused God?”  But we didn’t say everything that exists needs a cause; we said that anything that has a beginning has a cause. Since God doesn’t have a beginning, he doesn’t need a cause. Actually, the question, “Who caused God?” is a nonsense question, since what is really being asked is: “Who caused the uncaused Cause?” God by definition is the uncaused, eternal, self-existent Cause of everything else. 

For something at all to exist now, something must have always existed. What we are arguing is that there has to be an eternal, self-existent Being to account for the existence of anything else in the universe. There has to be an eternal, uncaused Cause because otherwise there wouldn’t be anything else at all. We call that Cause God because that Being not only has to be eternal, but he also has to be intelligent and all-powerful to bring the universe into existence.

_______________________________________

[1] When talking to a skeptic about this, you can ask if he agrees with the vast majority of scientists that the universe has a beginning. How most scientists interpret the beginning is wrong, but the common ground we have with them is that there was a beginning. So it is good to take advantage of that, and use that as a starting point.

[2] Francis Schaeffer, He is There and He is Not Silent, Tyndale House, Carol Stream, Illinois, pp. 7–8, 1980.


11 Comments
Dominic
4/28/2020 06:49:22 am

Interesting article here. I few years ago I read a book by a Christian astrophysicist who essentially argued the same points. One thing I think that we as Christians need to keep in mind, as you stated, is that God does not have a cause, because only things that begin to exist necessitate a beginning. Since we do not define God as a Being that began to exist, we do not need to prove how God began to exist.

Reply
Donovan C
5/2/2020 07:55:30 am

I find the cosmological argument for the existence of God to be quite convincing. The argument is rooted in proven scientific evidence: the universe definitely had a beginning. Space, time, and matter are created things. Therefore, the Cause of our universe must be outside of these elements. The Cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. God is omnipresent, eternal, and spiritual. I also believe that the design argument is convincing.

Reply
Joshua Davis
3/26/2021 10:26:21 am

I think one of the strongest parts of this argument is found in the area of mathematics. The mathematical improbability is staggering.

Reply
Jacob Williams
5/7/2021 07:27:54 pm

It's crazy how impossible it would be for the evolutionist view to happen.

Reply
Frank Frausto
12/5/2021 12:12:58 pm

I am partial to the cosmological argument because it is scientific, logical, simple and fun to share with others during evangelism. The law of “cause and effect” is easy to grasp. Most people will immediately agree with this as an absolute. Following up that observation with the question “what is the cause of the universe before there was a single atom in it, where did matter come from?” is going to take the conversation to where Dr. Bird was pointing, “How could nothing produce something? It starts to become apparent that God is a necessary First Cause because whatever created the universe has to be outside of it. I like how Dr. Craig puts it, God is “a personal Creator, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and intelligent." Ony God meets all the necessary requirements to create something from nothing.

Reply
Zane H
12/11/2021 07:27:10 pm

This argument is incredibly persuasive to me and I would suspect also the average person. It goes against all of human experience to believe something appeared from nothing. It would be quite disruptive to science and every day life if matter spontaneously appeared. I appreciate that your argument includes language about "everything that begins to exist" instead of just "everything" as God does not have a cause but also did not begin to exist as he is eternal.

Reply
Stewart
12/13/2021 12:31:16 pm

I found this article to helpful, it is a great resource to remember. I liked your last paragraph on "Who Caused God." I liked your logical working through the question that atheist bring up.

Reply
Scott
12/14/2021 05:27:46 pm

I was in a Philosophy class and I had to present on this topic. I think this argument is a great topic for the exiatence of God.

Reply
Brent Whitaker
12/14/2022 02:45:45 pm

This is one of my favorite arguments for God's existence, at least from a philosophical standpoint. What a awe-inspiring statement, "God by definition is the uncaused, eternal, self-existent Cause of everything else."

Reply
Anthony Paulus
5/6/2023 09:49:20 am

This is one of my favorite arguments! I would say this is my go to argument when speaking about the existence of God or even creation for that matter. Because there is creation then there must be a creator.

Reply
Dominic G.
5/8/2023 08:27:19 am

The cosmological argument has always seemed strong in my mind. Near the end of the article, Dr. Bird mentioned that the one counter argument is that people want to know who or what caused God. We believe God was the uncaused, ever-existing One. We, as humans, cannot fully understand this reality, and I believe this is why some people seek to explain the universe without God. It's hard for us to admit that that there's some things we cannot fully understand, but, through facts that we know (like the laws of energy), we can accurately understand that God must be the only reasonable explanation to the existence of the universe.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Mark Bird teaches Systematic Theology and Apologetics, among other subjects, at God's Bible School and College, a regionally accredited Bible College in Cincinnati, OH.

    Archives

    February 2020
    April 2017
    March 2014
    May 2012
    July 2011

    Categories

    All
    Arminianism
    Calvinism
    God
    Prayer

    RSS Feed